| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#1
posted to alt.sailing.asa
|
|||
|
|||
Salty Dog is a liar!
He claims North Cove was last dredged in the 60's.
The local paper says 1992: http://www.courant.com/community/new...,6037602.story "Long term benefit"? The gunkhole silts up every 5 years, not every 50 as Salty Dog the liar claims. Caveat: don't believe everything Salty Dog says. Too bad Dave, who obviously knew this, didn't present the facts. Shows what pigs slopping at the government trough will stoop to. |
|
#2
posted to alt.sailing.asa
|
|||
|
|||
|
Salty Dog is a liar!
On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 17:12:08 -0600, "redbard"
wrote: He claims North Cove was last dredged in the 60's. The local paper says 1992: http://www.courant.com/community/new...,6037602.story "Long term benefit"? The gunkhole silts up every 5 years, not every 50 as Salty Dog the liar claims. Caveat: don't believe everything Salty Dog says. Too bad Dave, who obviously knew this, didn't present the facts. Shows what pigs slopping at the government trough will stoop to. You just pegged the buffoonometer. |
|
#4
posted to alt.sailing.asa
|
|||
|
|||
|
Salty Dog is a liar!
wrote in message
... On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 17:12:08 -0600, "redbard" wrote: He claims North Cove was last dredged in the 60's. The local paper says 1992: http://www.courant.com/community/new...,6037602.story "Long term benefit"? The gunkhole silts up every 5 years, not every 50 as Salty Dog the liar claims. Caveat: don't believe everything Salty Dog says. Too bad Dave, who obviously knew this, didn't present the facts. Shows what pigs slopping at the government trough will stoop to. You just pegged the buffoonometer. Again? -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
|
#5
posted to alt.sailing.asa
|
|||
|
|||
|
Salty Dog is a liar!
On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 18:33:21 -0600, "redbard"
wrote: wrote in message .. . On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 17:12:08 -0600, "redbard" wrote: He claims North Cove was last dredged in the 60's. The local paper says 1992: http://www.courant.com/community/new...,6037602.story "Long term benefit"? The gunkhole silts up every 5 years, not every 50 as Salty Dog the liar claims. Caveat: don't believe everything Salty Dog says. Too bad Dave, who obviously knew this, didn't present the facts. Shows what pigs slopping at the government trough will stoop to. You just pegged the buffoonometer. Xref: news rec.boats.cruising:315314 Path: news.glorb.com!aioe.org!not-for-mail From: Newsgroups: rec.boats.cruising Subject: Getting Oriented Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2008 09:19:17 -0400 Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server Lines: 33 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: 5jaQ4jyyngAY3bEgd5Vv/A.user.aioe.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 4.2/32.1118 On Thu, 4 Sep 2008 21:40:38 -0600, "Mike" wrote: "Dave" wrote in message . .. On Wed, 3 Sep 2008 11:49:39 -0600, "Mike" said: This is of no benefit to the average American or the common good. Yeah. Tough ****, isn't it. Fortunately, you and your friends were asleep at the switch when hearings were held on the project. Tough **** for who? I don't have to moor my boat almost 100 miles from where I live. ~Dave could easily have his boat much closer to where he lives. ~Instead, he realizes the value in keeping it in an amazingly beautiful ~and protected anchorage directly adjacent to some of the best sailing ~grounds on the entire east coast. He also has strong ties to the area ~because he used to live there. If it wasn't so shallow, I probably ~would have put myself on the waiting list there many years ago. ~And if you are going to calculate the "price per yacht" for the ~dredging, be fair and divided by the number of yachts times the number ~of years (50) between dredgings. And yes, those wealthy *******s DO ~spend a lot of money in the area, and create jobs, making it worth ~dredging every 50 years or so, whether it needs it or not. It is also ~a designated Federal Harbor of refuge. Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!! Liar! Dredging every 50 years! 50 years! Liar! Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!! So is it worth dredging every 5 years too? It's worth it at any cost so long as liars like you benefit! Liar!!!!!!! Slop hogs at the government trough!! Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!! You still haven't made your case. Go look again. |
|
#6
posted to alt.sailing.asa
|
|||
|
|||
|
Salty Dog is a liar!
"Dave" wrote in message ... On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 17:12:08 -0600, "redbard" said: "Long term benefit"? The gunkhole silts up every 5 years, not every 50 as Salty Dog the liar claims. Caveat: don't believe everything Salty Dog says. Too bad Dave, who obviously knew this, didn't present the facts. Shows what pigs slopping at the government trough will stoop to. Sigh....Pity the ignorant. The 1992 dredging was only a partial dredging, as the current one will be. (Current one is to go only to 6 ft. depth. Full dredging would take it to 11 ft.) The one prior to 1992 was a full dredging, and lasted some 30 years. I have no pity for the ignorant: ~And if you are going to calculate the "price per yacht" for the ~dredging, be fair and divided by the number of yachts times the number ~of years (50) between dredgings. And yes, those wealthy *******s DO ~spend a lot of money in the area, and create jobs, making it worth ~dredging every 50 years or so, whether it needs it or not. It is also ~a designated Federal Harbor of refuge. 50 years! Since it was dredged in 1992 shouldn't it be dredged again in 2042? And if it was dredged in '92 isn't the required dredging every 25 years? He's a liar! |
|
#7
posted to alt.sailing.asa
|
|||
|
|||
|
Salty Dog is a liar!
wrote in message ... On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 08:55:07 -0600, "redbard" wrote: "Dave" wrote in message . .. On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 17:12:08 -0600, "redbard" said: "Long term benefit"? The gunkhole silts up every 5 years, not every 50 as Salty Dog the liar claims. Caveat: don't believe everything Salty Dog says. Too bad Dave, who obviously knew this, didn't present the facts. Shows what pigs slopping at the government trough will stoop to. Sigh....Pity the ignorant. The 1992 dredging was only a partial dredging, as the current one will be. (Current one is to go only to 6 ft. depth. Full dredging would take it to 11 ft.) The one prior to 1992 was a full dredging, and lasted some 30 years. I have no pity for the ignorant: ~And if you are going to calculate the "price per yacht" for the ~dredging, be fair and divided by the number of yachts times the number ~of years (50) between dredgings. And yes, those wealthy *******s DO ~spend a lot of money in the area, and create jobs, making it worth ~dredging every 50 years or so, whether it needs it or not. It is also ~a designated Federal Harbor of refuge. 50 years! Since it was dredged in 1992 shouldn't it be dredged again in 2042? And if it was dredged in '92 isn't the required dredging every 25 years? He's a liar! Dave spelled it out for you and you still don't have it correctly. The last full dredging was the one PRIOR to 1992 and lasted 30 years. Go look at a calendar if it will help you. Thirty years before 1992 it was... 1962! Dave says it lasted "some 30 years. Do I need to remind you that it is now 2008, and almost 2009. Do the math, Bob. Looks like roughly 46, or maybe even a few more years, depending on how accurate Dave was with the "some 30 years". AMEN! PRAISE! I don't need any help with the math. You, possessing engineering degrees both mechanical and electrical, should be well versed in the science of measurement! The point of discussion here is your misrepresentation of the dredging of the Saybrook Gunkhole. First you say it needs dredging every 50 years, now it's every 30! Then you say it was last dredged 50 years ago, now it's 16 years ago. Dredging is dredging regardless of depth. Why do you rely on Dave to correctly present the facts? Can't you? Since you were the cutting edge reporter on the scene for all those years shouldn't you be presenting truthful facts in the spirit of what journalism is? Maybe you were working on the Einiac at the time. You're full of it, you resort to lies to make a point that doesn't hold water - in fact it silts up in a matter of hours as soon as one checks the facts. Since there have been no boats requiring 11 feet of water in the harbor for at least 30 years, why dredge it to that depth? 60-70 foot sailboats have about 11' of draft, and 150' power boats draw about the same. Dredging it deeper will only require more frequent dredgings since the rich folk of the Connecticut shore will bring in their deep draft yachts. Can America afford catering to the rich when so many children go to bed hungry and have no health insurance? The cost of the dredging would provide 10,000 children with health insurance for a year. Bottom line: Don't take Salty on his word. Check the facts. |
|
#8
posted to alt.sailing.asa
|
|||
|
|||
|
Salty Dog is a liar!
wrote in message ... On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 09:59:14 -0600, "redbard" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 08:55:07 -0600, "redbard" wrote: "Dave" wrote in message m... On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 17:12:08 -0600, "redbard" said: "Long term benefit"? The gunkhole silts up every 5 years, not every 50 as Salty Dog the liar claims. Caveat: don't believe everything Salty Dog says. Too bad Dave, who obviously knew this, didn't present the facts. Shows what pigs slopping at the government trough will stoop to. Sigh....Pity the ignorant. The 1992 dredging was only a partial dredging, as the current one will be. (Current one is to go only to 6 ft. depth. Full dredging would take it to 11 ft.) The one prior to 1992 was a full dredging, and lasted some 30 years. I have no pity for the ignorant: ~And if you are going to calculate the "price per yacht" for the ~dredging, be fair and divided by the number of yachts times the number ~of years (50) between dredgings. And yes, those wealthy *******s DO ~spend a lot of money in the area, and create jobs, making it worth ~dredging every 50 years or so, whether it needs it or not. It is also ~a designated Federal Harbor of refuge. 50 years! Since it was dredged in 1992 shouldn't it be dredged again in 2042? And if it was dredged in '92 isn't the required dredging every 25 years? He's a liar! Dave spelled it out for you and you still don't have it correctly. The last full dredging was the one PRIOR to 1992 and lasted 30 years. Go look at a calendar if it will help you. Thirty years before 1992 it was... 1962! Dave says it lasted "some 30 years. Do I need to remind you that it is now 2008, and almost 2009. Do the math, Bob. Looks like roughly 46, or maybe even a few more years, depending on how accurate Dave was with the "some 30 years". AMEN! PRAISE! I don't need any help with the math. You, possessing engineering degrees both mechanical and electrical, should be well versed in the science of measurement! The point of discussion here is your misrepresentation of the dredging of the Saybrook Gunkhole. First you say it needs dredging every 50 years, now it's every 30! Then you say it was last dredged 50 years ago, now it's 16 years ago. Dredging is dredging regardless of depth. Why do you rely on Dave to correctly present the facts? Can't you? Since you were the cutting edge reporter on the scene for all those years shouldn't you be presenting truthful facts in the spirit of what journalism is? Maybe you were working on the Einiac at the time. You're full of it, you resort to lies to make a point that doesn't hold water - in fact it silts up in a matter of hours as soon as one checks the facts. Since there have been no boats requiring 11 feet of water in the harbor for at least 30 years, why dredge it to that depth? 60-70 foot sailboats have about 11' of draft, and 150' power boats draw about the same. Dredging it deeper will only require more frequent dredgings since the rich folk of the Connecticut shore will bring in their deep draft yachts. Can America afford catering to the rich when so many children go to bed hungry and have no health insurance? The cost of the dredging would provide 10,000 children with health insurance for a year. Bottom line: Don't take Salty on his word. Check the facts. funny. completely off the wall, but funny. FYI: First dredged in 1965 and is NOT a designated Federal Harbor of Refuge! More lies from you! I find no humor knowing that 10,000 children are denied health insurance so the wealthy can moor even larger yachts closer to home. |
|
#9
posted to alt.sailing.asa
|
|||
|
|||
|
Salty Dog is a liar!
wrote in message ... On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 10:29:34 -0600, "redbard" wrote: funny. completely off the wall, but funny. FYI: First dredged in 1965 and is NOT a designated Federal Harbor of Refuge! Are you absolutely sure? Better check again! You've been wrong on almost every point so far. You are on a streak! Almost every point makes a streak? So which points have I been correct on? http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_20...cfr175.400.htm " Harbor of safe refuge means a port, inlet, or other body of water normally sheltered from heavy seas by land and in which a vessel can navigate and safely moor. The suitability of a location as a harbor of safe refuge shall be determined by the cognizant Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection, and varies for each vessel, dependent on the vessel's size, maneuverability, and mooring gear." The burden of proof remains upon you to show that it is a Federally Designated Harbor of Refuge. I'll make it easy for you. Point out the section he http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_20...3cfr110.55.htm TITLE 33--NAVIGATION AND NAVIGABLE WATERS CHAPTER I--COAST GUARD, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY PART 110_ANCHORAGE REGULATIONS--Table of Contents Subpart A_Special Anchorage Areas Sec. 110.55 Connecticut River, Conn. (a) West of Calves Island at Old Saybrook. Beginning at a point bearing 254[deg]09[min]16[sec], 153 yards, from Calves Island 20 Light; thence 157[deg], 1,037 yards; thence 175[deg], 150 yards; thence 265[deg], 250 yards; thence 350[deg], 660 yards; thence 337[deg], 460 yards; and thence approximately 67[deg], 135 yards, to the point of beginning. (a-1) Area No. 1, at Essex. Beginning at a point on the shore on the west side of Haydens Point bearing approximately 211[deg], 270 yards, from Haydens Point Light; thence 270[deg], 160 yards; thence due north, 140 yards; thence 300[deg], 190 yards; thence 330[deg], 400 yards; thence 90[deg], 60 yards; thence 150[deg], 350 yards; thence 120[deg], about 434 yards to a point on the shore; thence along the shore southwesterly to the point of beginning. (b) Area No. 2, at Essex. Beginning at a point latitude 41[deg]21[min]22[sec], longitude 72[deg]22[min]53[sec]; thence 205[deg]30[min], 375 yards; thence 194[deg]31[min], 100 yards; thence 185[deg]00[min], 440 yards; thence 153[deg]30[min], 80 yards; thence 121[deg]00[min], 220 yards; thence due north approximately 1060 yards to the point of beginning. Note: The area will be principally for use by yachts and other recreational craft. Temporary floats or buoys for marking anchors will be allowed. Fixed mooring piles or stakes are prohibited. The anchoring of vessels and the placing of temporary moorings will be under the jurisdiction and at the discretion of the local Harbor Master. (c) West of Brockway Island at Essex. That portion of the waters northwest of a line ranging 238[deg] from latitude 41[deg]22[min]20.7[sec], longitude 72[deg]22[min]49.8[sec] to the shoreline; southwest of a line connecting a point at latitude 41[deg]22[min]20.7[sec], longitude 72[deg]22[min]49.8[sec] and a point at latitude 41[deg]22[min]28.2[sec], longitude 72[deg]22[min]56[sec]; and southeast of a line ranging 238[deg] from latitude 41[deg]22[min]28.2[sec], longitude 72[deg]22[min]56[sec] to the shoreline. Note: This area is principally for vessels used for a recreational purpose. A mooring buoy is permitted. Fixed mooring piles or stakes are prohibited. (d) Area No. 1, at Eddy Rock Light. Beginning at latitude 41[deg]26[min]38[sec], longitude 72[deg]27[min]37[sec]; thence extending southeasterly to latitude 41[deg]26[min]12[sec], longitude 72[deg]27[min]18[sec]; thence extending westerly to latitude 41[deg]26[min]11[sec], longitude 72[deg]27[min]22[sec]; thence extending northwesterly to latitude 41[deg]26[min]23[sec], longitude 72[deg]27[min]42[sec]; thence extending northerly to latitude 41[deg]26[min]36[sec], longitude 72[deg]27[min]43[sec]; thence extending easterly to the point of beginning. (e) Area No. 2, at Lord Island. Beginning at latitude 41[deg]26[min]11[sec], longitude 72[deg]27[min]16[sec]; thence extending south southeasterly to latitude 41[deg]26[min]03[sec], longitude 72[deg]27[min]02[sec]; thence extending southeasterly to latitude 41[deg]25[min]59[sec], longitude 72[deg]26[min]51[sec]; thence extending southwesterly to latitude 41[deg]25[min]58[sec], longitude 72[deg]26[min]52[sec]; thence extending northwesterly to latitude 41[deg]26[min]05[sec], longitude 72[deg]27[min]11[sec]; thence extending north northwesterly to latitude 41[deg]26[min]10[sec], longitude 72[deg]27[min]20[sec]; thence extending easterly to the point of beginning. Note: The areas designated by paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section are principally for use by yachts and other recreational craft. Fore and aft moorings will be allowed. Temporary floats or buoys for marking anchors in place will be allowed. Fixed mooring piles or stakes are prohibited. All moorings shall be so placed that no vessel, when anchored, shall at any time extend beyond the limits of the areas. The anchoring of vessels and placing of mooring floats or buoys will be under the jurisdiction, and at the discretion of the local Harbor Master. Area 2 will not be used during the shad fishing season. [[Page 424]] (e-1) Area No. 1 at Chester. Beginning at a point about 600 feet southeasterly of the entrance of Chester Creek, at latitude 41[deg]24[min]23[sec], longitude 72[deg]25[min]41[sec]; thence due south about 1,800 feet to latitude 41[deg]24[min]05[sec], longitude 72[deg]25[min]41[sec]; thence due east about 600 feet to latitude 41[deg]24[min]05[sec], longitude 72[deg]25[min]32[sec]; thence due north about 1,800 feet to latitude 41[deg]24[min]23[sec], longitude 72[deg]25[min]32[sec]; thence due west about 600 feet to the point of beginning. Note: The area is principally for use by yachts and other recreational craft. A mooring buoy is allowed. Fixed mooring piles or stakes are prohibited. (e-2) Area No. 2 at Chester. That area south of latitude 41[deg]24[min]43.9[sec], west of longitude 72[deg]25[min]35[sec], north of latitude 41[deg]24[min]33.4[sec], and east of longitude 72[deg]25[min]40.8[sec]. Note: Area No. 2 may not be used during the shad fishing season, April 1 to June 15, inclusive. A mooring buoy is permitted at other times. Fixed mooring piles or stakes are prohibited. (f) Vicinity of Mouse Island Bar below Portland. On the north side of the river shoreward of lines described as follows: (1) Beginning at a point bearing 02[deg], 175 yards, from Mouse Island 73 Light; thence 270[deg], 480 yards; and thence due north, approximately 230 yards, to the shore. (2) Beginning at the said point bearing 02[deg], 175 yards, from Mouse Island 73 Light; thence 70[deg], 400 yards; and thence 350[deg], approximately 250 yards, to the shore. (g) Area at Portland. Beginning at a point on the shore, about 700 feet southeasterly from the easterly end of the New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad Company bridge, at latitude 41[deg]33[min]55[sec], longitude 72[deg]38[min]43[sec]; thence 250[deg] to latitude 41[deg]33[min]54[sec], longitude 72[deg]38[min]46[sec]; thence 160[deg] to latitude 41[deg]33[min]48[sec], longitude 72[deg]38[min]43[sec]; thence 145[deg] to latitude 41[deg]33[min]44[sec], longitude 72[deg]38[min]39[sec]; thence 55[deg] to a point on the shore at latitude 41[deg]33[min]47[sec], longitude 72[deg]38[min]32[sec]; thence along the shore to the point of beginning. Note: The area will be principally for use by yachts and other recreational craft. Temporary floats or buoys for marking anchors will be allowed. Fixed mooring piles or stakes are prohibited. All moorings shall be so placed that no vessel, when anchored, shall at any time extend beyond the limit of the area or closer than 50 feet to the Federal channel limit. The anchoring of vessels and the placing of temporary moorings will be under the jurisdiction, and at the discretion of the local Harbor Master. [CGFR 67-46, 32 FR 17728, Dec. 12, 1967, as amended by CGFR 68-137, 33 FR 18279, Dec. 10, 1968; CGFR 68-139, 33 FR 18437, Dec. 12, 1968] Does this include North Cove? If so where is the section? Kindly point it out along with the Federal Safe Harbor of Refuge Designation that you claim exists. |
|
#10
posted to alt.sailing.asa
|
|||
|
|||
|
Salty Dog is a liar!
wrote in message ... On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 11:29:36 -0600, "redbard" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 10:29:34 -0600, "redbard" wrote: funny. completely off the wall, but funny. FYI: First dredged in 1965 and is NOT a designated Federal Harbor of Refuge! Are you absolutely sure? Better check again! You've been wrong on almost every point so far. You are on a streak! Almost every point makes a streak? So which points have I been correct on? Not enough to make a difference. Thanks for the laughs, anyway. So where's the proof of Federal Designation as a Harbor of Safe Refuge as you claim? Do we just have to take your word on that? Not dredged in 50 years! Federal Harbor of Safe Refuge! News reporter of authority on this very issue! Secret submarine base under the third row of mooring buoys! Nimitz class aircraft carrier hidden in boathouse! Supertanker unloading platform near the entrance light! Surely one of your finer hours! Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!! Liar! Smackdown!!! |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Salty... | General | |||
| Yo: Eisboch and Salty | General | |||
| Yo! Salty | General | |||
| Salty Birds - Link to Photos | General | |||
Linear Mode
